Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Fort Bend County v. Davis (U.S. Supreme Court)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Late last month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fort Bend County v. Davis, a case that centers on whether the requirement that employment discrimination claimants present their claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") before filing suit is a jurisdictional prerequisite or instead a claim processing rule.

In this case, Lois Davis sued Fort Bend County for religious discrimination despite the fact that she never filed a charge of religious discrimination with the EEOC before filing suit.  As readers might be aware, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires claimants to exhaust claims of employment discrimination with the EEOC (including by filing a charge with the EEOC) prior to filing suit.  This exhaustion requirement ensures the EEOC has the ability to investigate a claim of discrimination, attempt conciliation with the employer, and even give the employer notice of the alleged discriminatory practice with the ability to cease that allegedly unlawful behavior.  However, there is a split among Circuits over whether a claimant's failure to exhaust discrimination claims precludes a court from hearing the matter.  The Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the exhaustion requirement in Title VII is jurisdictional, thus courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that were never presented to the EEOC.  (The Department of Justice subscribes to this line of reasoning as well.)  Eight Circuits disagree, characterizing the exhaustion requirement as a claim processing rule that is subject to waiver, forfeiture, or other equitable defenses.  (The EEOC subscribes to this line of reasoning as well.)

Notably, Fort Bend County waited five years before arguing that Davis had failed to properly file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.  If the exhaustion requirement in Title VII is found to be a claim processing rule, Fort Bend's failure to exhaust argument would not be timely (as it came too late.)  On the other hand, if the exhaustion requirement is found to be jurisdictional, Fort Bend could properly proceed with this argument (as it would not be too late to argue Davis failed to comply with Title VII.)

At the oral arguments, counsel for Fort Bend County argued that the text and structure of Title VII indicated that the exhaustion remedy is jurisdictional.  That same section of Title VII further contains a grant of jurisdiction for federal courts to hear "actions brought under this subchapter."  Consequently, the argument was made that taken together, these paragraphs provided "text linking explicitly to the jurisdictional provision" as "part of an intricate scheme for statutory and judicial review."  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared skeptical of this line of reasoning, pointing out that with the EEOC's limited power to resolve claims, it would be unusual to deem jurisdictional an agency process that can result only in conciliation (as opposed to adjudication.)  Counsel for Davis zeroed in on this line of reasoning, pointing out that unlike the EEOC's power over discrimination claims, the National Labor Relations Act allows agencies to actually adjudicate claims that are then reviewed by federal appeals courts.

As many legal scholars have noted, based upon how oral arguments played out, it is likely that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Davis and find that Title VII's exhaustion requirement is a claim processing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more